Ok, you are probably thinking that I am on completely the wrong forum but just wait and you will see.
So a “very small” minority of people avoid paying tax and cheat the system. Therefore to stop this cheating from occurring I have decided that nobody will get paid and nobody will get any money, instead they will be given stars and smiley face stickers (really colourful ones) depending on how long they can survive. BINGO “PROBLEM SOLVED”
This is the approach that 343 appears to have taken with Halo 4’s Ranking system and to be honest seems so stupid considering how successful Halo 3’s Ranking system was.
Sure a small minority of people bought accounts and got boosted to high ranks, but who cares, at the end of the day this “cheating” does not really effect anyone but the person buying the account (who clearly needs to grow up btw).
Frankie stated that this was more prominent in H3 than everyone thought, but to be honest looking at the level distribution and the number of players at each level (in H3) this can clearly be shown not to be the case as there is a near perfect negative correlation between Number of players and Rank. (which should be the case)
Basically what im saying is
343 you appear to be making decisions by looking at a very small minority of players (who by the way don’t appreciate and enjoy halo) which negatively effect the overwhelming majority of players that actually enjoy playing and increasing their rank (1-50)
Some last minute points before I go
I done a poll on waypoint and 73% of people would prefer a ranking system similar to H3 than any sort of progression system.
on H3 around 70% of players would be in ranked playlists with the other 30 in social.
Who cares about rank its such a stupid feature in every game if you are good then you are good if you suck then you suck I just care if it is balanced and fun.
No, even if they go with the invisible ranking system, that’s not how it’ll work. There will still be ranks that measure skill, but they won’t be visible, like in Halo Reach.
> Some last minute points before I go
> 1) I done a poll on waypoint and 73% of people would prefer a ranking system similar to H3 than any sort of progression system.
> 2) on H3 around 70% of players would be in ranked playlists with the other 30 in social.
You do realize that poll results from here are pretty inaccurate, right? You have a tiny fraction of the Waypoint population that answered your poll which represents and even tinier portion of the Halo population as a whole.
> > Some last minute points before I go
> > 1) I done a poll on waypoint and 73% of people would prefer a ranking system similar to H3 than any sort of progression system.
> > 2) on H3 around 70% of players would be in ranked playlists with the other 30 in social.
>
> You do realize that poll results from here are pretty inaccurate, right? You have a tiny fraction of the Waypoint population that answered your poll which represents and even tinier portion of the Halo population as a whole.
So according to shzlss from the halo council this is what frank had to say
Ranking system
Oh boy, here we go.
Asked Frank about a ranking system and he said they wanted to get rid of cheaters while at the same time provide competitive matchmaking games. This is what the TrueSkill system in Reach was designed to do, but all of us can agree, it doesn’t work very well. Frank said something about maybe making a system that only shows your rank to you, and won’t let anyone else see it over live. What Bravo told him at E3 made it sound like the ranking system is mostly there for bragging rights, and it seems that Frank doesn’t want to implement a ranking system solely to use as bragging rights.
Given said that Frank said we will know what ranking system is in H4 before the release.
> > and to be honest seems so stupid considering how successful Halo 3’s Ranking system was.
>
> I stopped listening after reading this. Halo 3’s ranking system was riddled with problems.
something can be successful and yet still have faults, theres a difference between perfect and successful.
Here’s something that did affect a lot of people: deranking. People going into playlist and either quitting or purposefully doing bad in order to loose rank. It was a serious problem, do not try to down play it.
> This is the approach that 343 appears to have taken with Halo 4’s Ranking system and to be honest seems so stupid <mark>considering how successful Halo 3’s Ranking system was.</mark>
I’m sorry, but I couldn’t even finish reading the post after that one.
> Some last minute points before I go
> 1) I done a poll on waypoint and 73% of people would prefer a ranking system similar to H3 than any sort of progression system.
> 2) on H3 around 70% of players would be in ranked playlists with the other 30 in social.
Are you talking about this poll? If so, allow me to enlighten you: the OP of that poll used his twitter account to pull in huge support for the return of a 1-50 system. This makes the poll bias and thus inaccurate.
This is easily explained by the fact that, in Halo 3, ranked playlists match people based on skill, thus providing better matches. Social in Halo 3 worked like Halo Reach, just matching the first batch of people available, skill be -Yoink!-.
> > > and to be honest seems so stupid considering how successful Halo 3’s Ranking system was.
> >
> > I stopped listening after reading this. Halo 3’s ranking system was riddled with problems.
>
> something can be successful and yet still have faults, theres a difference between perfect and successful.
Yes, something can be successful and imperfect. However, there are plenty who would make the case that Halo 3’s system was a failure
> > > > and to be honest seems so stupid considering how successful Halo 3’s Ranking system was.
> > >
> > > I stopped listening after reading this. Halo 3’s ranking system was riddled with problems.
> >
> > something can be successful and yet still have faults, theres a difference between perfect and successful.
>
> Yes, something can be successful and imperfect. However, there are plenty who would make the case that Halo 3’s system was a failure
yeah it is very arguable as to whether or not halo 3’s ranking system was a failure or not, personally I thought it worked very well but then again I never actually made it to level 50 so I can’t really say that it was or was not a success.
I think we can all agree that a system that matches you against players of an equal skill level is vital to the success of halo 4’s MP.
> > > > > and to be honest seems so stupid considering how successful Halo 3’s Ranking system was.
> > > >
> > > > I stopped listening after reading this. Halo 3’s ranking system was riddled with problems.
> > >
> > > something can be successful and yet still have faults, theres a difference between perfect and successful.
> >
> > Yes, something can be successful and imperfect. However, there are plenty who would make the case that Halo 3’s system was a failure
>
> yeah it is very arguable as to whether or not halo 3’s ranking system was a failure or not, personally I thought it worked very well but then again <mark>I never actually made it to level 50 so I can’t really say that it was or was not a success</mark>.
>
> I think we can all agree that a system that matches you against players of an equal skill level is vital to the success of halo 4’s MP.
That bit that’s highlight, that is exactly how Halo 3’s system failed. It was sold and treated like a progression system, not the skill rating system it was meant to be. Not everyone was supposed to be a 50, but because of the way it worked, everyone felt entitled to a 50.
(This isn’t meant to be an attack on you, if that’s how it seems, I’m just trying to get my point across)
Halo 3s ranking sucked…it was based on winning and being MVP…so if you were the guy under the MVP and on the loosing team…sucked for you…the only place it seemed to work was lone wolfs maybe…but anything team based was just crap